Quote:
Originally posted by Hooper@Mar 28 2003, 08:37 PM
Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic.
Might as well point out that Carter was from Georgia and a bad president. The two have very little to do with eachother.
It amazes me how much people like to play on a "team"... you're either a dem or a rep (at least on this board).. do people feel the need to join "teams" and choose sides just because they like to feel like part of something? Dont forget that a republican from the northeast is usually more liberal than a democrat from the south. And all this Liberal vs. Conservative policy, do you mean social issues, economic issues, or international issues?
GW is a terrible president, his economic policy is damning (can you remember the last time that the chairman of the federal reserve came out with a statement that the president was instituting bad economic policy? no. cause it's never happened before.), his international policy is no better than that of a 12 year old with plastic G.I. Joe's and a passion for symbolism (never has the USA had more sympathy than after 9/11... every expert with half a brain now acknowledges that the GW admin has managed to completely destroy all of that goodwill), the man was a C student at a university that he only got into because his daddy was an Alum.
I could really care less what fuckin party he belongs to. I vote for the man not the party, and next time I have the chance to vote, you can bet that I will pick a man who doesnt "Mis-Underestimate" the power of "Nuculear" bombs.
Who in their right mind stands behind this man as though he is our nations savior? He is a short sited, closed minded, unintelligent, symbol driven, greedy man and he is hurting our country.
|
well said!!!
the one thing i've had the most trouble understanding about usa politics is the 'teams' ... you have to be on 1 side on the other and you can't disagree with any policy or elected politician if they belong to the party you belong to ... i never understood how the best person would be picked for the job if everyone stuck with their own teams ...
the other thing that i've noticed is that this method produces a lot of sheep who agree with their party's leader for no other reason than he is a 'democrat' or a 'republican' ...
from what i gather, being a democrat or a republican is decided on a set of rules and policies ... you agree with all or none of the rules and that's what decides which party you belong to. I wonder sometimes why Torone and Mike have so much trouble accepting the opinions of others, and I've realized its because of the rules of the political system ... you can't say anything negative about the party you belong to or you aren't truly a loyal member of that party, even if your party is flat out wrong on a particular issue. every opinion you do have contributes to making you a 'left wing' or 'right wing' or a combination of 'labels' which you are then a part of for life.
What's wrong with just having an actual opinion based on the situation of the moment and considering the facts as they relate to that specific situation?
The political test we did here on oprano was really interesting ... we got to see everyone cast into an 'identity' based on a small series of questions ... are our views any more or less valid if we fit into the right or wrong category?
And more importantly, relating to this thread, does being a republican make George Bush a good or a bad president? Or does the fact that he's made bad decisions for america make him a bad republican? Or does the fact that he's a republican make him a good president/bad president no matter what he's done with his term in office?